BF2S Forums Serious question (the logic of why America invades a country)

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

I have a quick and serious question.

Why do America invade and take over a country, in support to "aid" that particular country like Iraq, When there are country's who are ten times worst off like a city in Africa where hundrens die a day from proverty, but not only that, but also from the millitary, who have actually taken over these countrys?? Shoudnt the americans, take millitary action against a place like Serria Leon??
NOTE: this is not a debate, but yet a question.

To put it frankly, There are probably hundreds of reasons for the war in Iraq.

Oil
Haliburton Stock
Better Positioning for Iran
Removing Saddam from power and installing a new puppet.


Those are just a few that come to mind. If you are a practitioner of what is called RealPolitik then you are probably familiar with the phrase "Stronger powers do what they will, Weak powers suffer what they must."

its basically of a description of how the world works.

Countries like the United States can do things like this, well...because they can. Who is to stop them? And to be quite frank, the United States has hardly moved in a means that is very different from most other countries, and hardly as vicious. However, the US's motives have greater scope, and greater scope=greater publicity, with means greater sensationalism.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Oh... I get it...  so 9/11 changed things even though we had already dealt with one Trade Center bombing before.

Well, I guess that means one of 2 things:

1) The Republicans were calling the invasion of Iraq bullshit in the late 90s, but they were the ones full of shit.

2) A war is only justified when a Republican president claims it.

Now, which do you think is true?

lol.. you really think the two events are comparable. Please cite your source that say the majority of the GOP were calling a war BS in the late 90's. As far as I can remember they brought war to Saddam not once but twice.

You don't remember the "Wag the Dog" mentality of that time, do you?  People thought that Clinton had invaded Bosnia to distract people from his sex life.  The same sentiment seemed to resonate with the Iraq situation.  The Republicans really didn't think doing more than air strikes was necessary in dealing with Iraq at the time.  Why did they change tune so much so fast by 2002?

Yes, 9/11 was horrible, but don't you think we overreacted?  We invaded not one country but two.  For the deaths of 3,000 people, we've killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Somehow, that doesn't seem logical to me.  Would you care to defend that?

EDIT: You know as well as me that the first Gulf War involved stopping Iraq from taking over another country.  That certainly is a better rationale for war than anything you have to throw at the second time around.

how many people died in pearl harbor? and we went to war for that, do you think we overreacted then? or would you like to be speaking german and eating saur kraut?

sgtpompous wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lol.. you really think the two events are comparable. Please cite your source that say the majority of the GOP were calling a war BS in the late 90's. As far as I can remember they brought war to Saddam not once but twice.

You don't remember the "Wag the Dog" mentality of that time, do you?  People thought that Clinton had invaded Bosnia to distract people from his sex life.  The same sentiment seemed to resonate with the Iraq situation.  The Republicans really didn't think doing more than air strikes was necessary in dealing with Iraq at the time.  Why did they change tune so much so fast by 2002?

Yes, 9/11 was horrible, but don't you think we overreacted?  We invaded not one country but two.  For the deaths of 3,000 people, we've killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Somehow, that doesn't seem logical to me.  Would you care to defend that?

EDIT: You know as well as me that the first Gulf War involved stopping Iraq from taking over another country.  That certainly is a better rationale for war than anything you have to throw at the second time around.

how many people died in pearl harbor? and we went to war for that, do you think we overreacted then? or would you like to be speaking german and eating saur kraut?

So... let me get this straight.  You think it's perfectly fine to bomb a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but at the same time, use 9/11 as the reason for bombing that country?

Turquoise wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

You have to take "the times" that past things happened or put them in context. Would ANYONE back in that time, when we were at odds against Iran over the kidnappings and other incidences, have been against supporting Iraq in a war against Iran.....of course not. Everyone was for supporting Iraq against Iran and who in the hell would have known it would bite us in the ass later. Secondly, no way could we ever mind our own business because there are too many countries, leaders with their hands out asking for this or that.

No one in power seemed to be against it, but why would they if they knew they could make a fortune off of it?  Most of the people who hold power in our government at the highest levels have deep connections to the military industrial complex.  They make money off of warfare and arms deals, so it's not a matter of looking for a reason to get involved, it's just a matter of finding the right country to exploit.

Yes, Iran was obviously an enemy.  However, how could we not expect things to go badly in supporting insurgencies?  We tried something like that with Cuba not long before that, and that failed miserably and probably had a lot to do with JFK's assassination.

We can mind our own business more if we stop bowing to the interests of multi-national corporations and war profiteers.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

When something goes wrong, who do they run to and ask for help. Would it have been okay to ignore Kosovo or to ignore Germany, or would it have been okay to ignore Kuwait and mind our own business? Soon, something will need to be done about Darfur and guess who is going to be called upon. Who will be the majority army, who will sacrifice more of its young men and women more than anyone else...the United States. As one of richest countries and advanced militaries, we will USUALLY be the ones that have to respond whether its a natural disaster or militarily. Sometimes we may not like it...but its the position America is forced to deal with sometimes.

Yes, we give a lot.  I think we give too much, and what you're talking about is part of why I think we need to stop messing around so much.

Darfur is a horrible situation, but it's about time the rest of the world stood up and did something.

I agree with you in a lot of points but the Iran/ Iraq war had nothing to do with insurgencies. We backed Iraq because it was the times that we were in. It had nothing to do with money, cooperations...etc, etc. Now, as far as Dar fur....do you really think the rest of the world will stand up and do something about it? While we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...WHY ISN'T THE REST OF THE WORLD DOING SOMETHING ABOUT NOW? This is the kind of situation we were when it came to Iraq (Basic similarities, not exact). What I am saying is that we had sanctions, diplomacy and how many UN resolutions to get something done in Iraq before someone had or thought they had to do something.

Will the world wait for resolutions when it comes to Dar fur. Will we go through years and years of waiting and honestly what country would actually stand up and volunteer its men and women to stop what is going on there. It will likely come down to America. Now we sit here today and talk about this and if it does happen, will it come back and bite us in the ass later in some form...probably. In a lot of ways America is in this situation...."Damned if you do, Damned if you dont"

sgtpompous wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

how many people died in pearl harbor? and we went to war for that, do you think we overreacted then? or would you like to be speaking german and eating saur kraut?

So... let me get this straight.  You think it's perfectly fine to bomb a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but at the same time, use 9/11 as the reason for bombing that country?

first of all you didnt aswer my question, but i'll answer yours, iraq was probably a mistake, but we had no way of knowing that before we went in and i would rather look like an idiot than be dead. it should have been given more thought, but how would you have reacted if 3,000 people died and the people resposible for it were hiding somewhere in the desert? and whos to say that if we didnt go in when we did, saddam could have gotten WMD's and used them against us, or anyone for that matter, because he definately had the capability. again... i'd rather look like a fool than be dead

i could have been the Pope.....chose not too, but i could have.......

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I agree with you in a lot of points but the Iran/ Iraq war had nothing to do with insurgencies.

Read about the Iran-Contra affair.  I think you'll find that insurgency is quite a recurring theme in our relations with Iran.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Now, as far as Dar fur....do you really think the rest of the world will stand up and do something about it? While we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...WHY ISN'T THE REST OF THE WORLD DOING SOMETHING ABOUT NOW? This is the kind of situation we were when it came to Iraq (Basic similarities, not exact). What I am saying is that we had sanctions, diplomacy and how many UN resolutions to get something done in Iraq before someone had or thought they had to do something.

Will the world wait for resolutions when it comes to Dar fur. Will we go through years and years of waiting and honestly what country would actually stand up and volunteer its men and women to stop what is going on there. It will likely come down to America. Now we sit here today and talk about this and if it does happen, will it come back and bite us in the ass later in some form...probably. In a lot of ways America is in this situation...."Damned if you do, Damned if you dont"

I honestly believe that if we show the world that we're not going to clean up everybody's messes, they'll start doing it themselves.  You'll see Europe doing more.  You'll see the Islamic World doing more.

sgtpompous wrote:

Parker wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

how many people died in pearl harbor? and we went to war for that, do you think we overreacted then? or would you like to be speaking german and eating saur kraut?

there is a huge difference between "The War on Terror" and WWII......i sincerely hope you know that difference without one of us having to explain it to you.

explain it; i could use a good laugh

World War II was against War machines of Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy. They attacked first obviously and they caused terror but nothing of this so called war on terror, WWII was against nations.

This War on terror is against a group of people (terrorists) They don't so much as go for military but the kill innocents. Yes this happened on WWII on both sides, But both of those wars are completely different.

sgtpompous wrote:

first of all you didnt aswer my question, but i'll answer yours, iraq was probably a mistake, but we had no way of knowing that before we went in and i would rather look like an idiot than be dead. it should have been given more thought, but how would you have reacted if 3,000 people died and the people resposible for it were hiding somewhere in the desert? and whos to say that if we didnt go in when we did, saddam could have gotten WMD's and used them against us, or anyone for that matter, because he definately had the capability. again... i'd rather look like a fool than be dead

Yes, WW2 was necessary.  As Parker said, you should know that this is an apples to oranges comparison.  If you think Saddam was as powerful as Hitler or the Japanese Imperialists, then you're deluded.

We did have a way of knowing that Iraq would fail.  Several high ranking military officials advised strongly against invading Iraq.  Bush didn't really listen to his military experts, he listened to think-tanks like the Project for the New American Century.  This was a lot like Vietnam in that the war was very politically motivated despite serious logistic concerns.

We reacted appropriately when we invaded Afghanistan.  That's all that was needed.

Kmarion wrote:

WE have killed tens of thousands Iraqi's? Now your motivations in pursuing this debate have become completely transparent. Heaven forbid we actually blame the Iraqi terrorist for loading down a vehicle with explosives and driving it into their bretherns market to "fend of the infidels". I know, I know, our fault also for allowing animals to be animals. It's much easier to accept full blame and reasoning on every front than to see that given the choice between freedom and engaging in old blood feuds they chose failure at all cost rather than the humility being shown progress. Your self defeatist shame has forced you into accepting any reason to explain the invasion. I'm not saying Iraq was right (Although this is what you have devolved this debate into), I am saying the ones provided by you in this thread have gapping holes in logic.

I was actually referring to the deaths caused by the war, not the insurgency.

I don't blame our troops for what insurgents do.  I blame them for what our bombs did to Iraq when we conquered it.

I haven't devolved this debate at all, but you seem more than willing to assume that I blame our soldiers for the actions of insane people.

Still, what holes in logic do you see in my reasoning that this war was mostly about war profiteering?  Is it just a coincidence that Halliburton's stock value has quadrupled over the last several years?

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-17 20:28:10)

Parker wrote:

sgtpompous wrote:

Parker wrote:

there is a huge difference between "The War on Terror" and WWII......i sincerely hope you know that difference without one of us having to explain it to you.

explain it; i could use a good laugh

a good laugh? like the one i had when you made this sad little comparison?

#1. the war was fought with true professional armies.
#2. the freedom of Europe was at stake.
#3. we were at war with COUNTRIES, not people.
#4. we had TRUE allies.
#5. even the people that beheaded others were army regulars, they wore a uniform and didnt hide behind civilians.

any more you need help with little guy, or can you figure the rest out yourself?


edit: oh ya, we have better weapons now, but you dont want to start on that......

i never said the two wars were identical, the cause for fighting them is similar.  there were psychotic leaders that needed to be dealt with, and we were attacked by radical people who would have kept attacking us had we not acted. how is that different?

edit: you need to learn your WWII history, the nazis were about 10% of the german people, the rest either didnt want to get involved, or were too afraid to fight back, just as saddam's people were

Last edited by sgtpompous (2007-06-17 20:38:26)

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

WE have killed tens of thousands Iraqi's? Now your motivations in pursuing this debate have become completely transparent. Heaven forbid we actually blame the Iraqi terrorist for loading down a vehicle with explosives and driving it into their bretherns market to "fend of the infidels". I know, I know, our fault also for allowing animals to be animals. It's much easier to accept full blame and reasoning on every front than to see that given the choice between freedom and engaging in old blood feuds they chose failure at all cost rather than the humility being shown progress. Your self defeatist shame has forced you into accepting any reason to explain the invasion. I'm not saying Iraq was right (Although this is what you have devolved this debate into), I am saying the ones provided by you in this thread have gapping holes in logic.

I was actually referring to the deaths caused by the war, not the insurgency.

I don't blame our troops for what insurgents do.  I blame them for what our bombs did to Iraq when we conquered it.

I haven't devolved this debate at all, but you seem more than willing to assume that I blame our soldiers for the actions of insane people.

Still, what holes in logic do you see in my reasoning that this war was mostly about war profiteering?  Is it just a coincidence that Halliburton's stock has quadrupled over the last several years?

The stock market as a whole has increased significantly. After 9/11 and Bushes inherited recession the market as a whole was trading in the 7k range. Today we see it in the mid 13K's. 


Of course a company that deals in the business Haliburton does is going to have a significant increase during war time. It will also decline after the rebuilding efforts cease. You should also know that less than half of the contractors performing work in Iraq are from US companies. That's a little stat you won't see floating around the liberal blogosphere. I must say that I do find it absolutely hilarious that such an anti-Bush/Cheney guy like George Soros bought into Haliburton though.

Edit:I hit delete instead of edit ..lol

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The stock market as a whole has increased significantly. After 9/11 and Bushes inherited recession the market as a whole was trading in the 7k range. Today we see it in the mid 13K's. 
http://i14.tinypic.com/62ejn21.gif

Of course a company that deals in the business Haliburton does is going to have a significant increase during war time. It will also decline after the rebuilding efforts cease. You should also know that less than half of the contractors performing work in Iraq are from US companies. That's a little stat you won't see floating around the liberal blogosphere. I must say that I do find it absolutely hilarious that such an anti-Bush/Cheney guy like George Soros bought into Haliburton though.

So, give me some examples of major companies doing the contracting that aren't U.S. owned.  I'll see if I can find out if Bush & co. have invested in them.

Actually a good portion of the people rebuilding in Iraq are local and not private.... I'll get the specifics for you.

sgtpompous wrote:

how many people died in pearl harbor? and we went to war for that, do you think we overreacted then? or would you like to be speaking German and eating sour kraut?

We might have been already, but back in 1776 when we was forming America the German language was missed by one vote to be the national language. I would think that because of that one vote, Hitler lost WWII before he was born.